"No!" to Dem influence on national security matters.

It can't be stated any plainer.

The Democrats are desperate to get back in power and they are beholden to their radical, out-of-touch, Angry Left supporters. They have no new ideas and all they can think to do is turn over rocks and hope to find some piddling scandal that will appeal to the loony hard core of their supporters.

Bush lied! (Yawner.)

Plame was deep cover operative until outed by Cheney. (Yawn.)

Abu Graib = Auschwitz. (Yawn.)

Club Gitmo = Belsen. (Yawn.)

Gitmo Koran flapdoodle. (Yawn³.)

Failure to force Israel to apologize for existing. (Yawn.)

Fallujah massacre. (Yawn.)

Hadith massacre symptom of U.S. depravity. (Yawn.)

Failure to plan for occupation of Iraq. (Yawn.)

Failure to anticipate sectarian violence in Iraq. (Yawn.)

Failure to obtain second feng shui opinion before establishing Green Zone in Baghdad. (Yawn.)

Iran and its minions want America and all non-Muslims dead. They are our mortal enemies. We must defeat them and al Qaeda totally. This reality must be our core cultural mission for the foreseeable future. To this end, the current Democratic Party of Michael Moore, George Soros and Howard Dean can never be allowed to dictate national security. Therefore, the Democrats cannot gain control of Congress this November – no matter how angry we may be with Republicans regarding other issues. Furthermore, those in the so-called mainstream media who consistently malign the American war effort must be shunned.

The only thing the Colonel would trust Nancy Pelosi to do in the realm of national security would be to pick up expended shell casings on Ft. Bragg's rifle ranges.

Properly supervised, of course.

"What Will You Say?" By Vance McDonald, OpinionEditorials.com, 9/1/06 (emphasis added).

Iraq . . . because it's as good a place to kill jihadis as anywhere.

Frank Salvato suggests a more useful way of looking at Iraq. It's a convenient battlefield of our choosing and when the whole world is the battlefield against Islamofascism it does not make much sense to split hairs about whether the troops should stay or come home.

Yet, in order to advance a political power-play, the progressive, anti-war left surrenders to their addiction to the pursuit of power much like a crack-whore lays down for any “customer” with a five-dollar bill.

It’s pretty simple. Iraq is the central battlefield in the war against Islamofascism because we decided it was. We chose the place and we chose the time. We chose the mean streets of Iraq because they were being ruled by a thug regime that promoted the demise of the United States while facilitating terrorists and their organizations. We chose them over the streets of New York, Boston, Chicago or even San Francisco.

It would make sense to split hairs about which country to kill jihadis in. We prefer Iran over any other battlefield.

The Colonel's pretty tired of swatting the fleas that fall off the Iranian dog. What is it with our fascination with proxy warfare?

"Designating the Battlefields Is Essential ." By Frank Salvato, OpinionEditorials.com, 9/1/06.

George chastises the Colonel.

George is unhappy with the Colonel's post, "The slowwww awakening," and writes:

The Colonel didn't know zip about Islam until about a year ago

That is pretty obvious. You seem to know fuck all about it now.

Was it . . . just possibly mind you . . . a mistake to have imported Muslims into a Western nation, a nation whose values are fundamentally at odds with Islamic values?

No, the mistake - as all in the UK accept - was to go along with Bush's illegal invasion of a sovereign nation on the basis of lies, and then to militarily occupy that nation, engaging in torture, rape, and mass murder.

If the Chinese were to invade Ireland and then treated the Irish as the Iraqis have been treated - torturing them, raping their women and then killing them, slaughtering families like the Haditha massacre, etc - whose side would you be on? The occupying Chinese, or your fellow white [Christian] anglo-saxons? Once you get your head round that, you will understand what is going on.

Thanks for clearing that up for me, George.

So your instruction for me on Islam is that if the Brits (Mongolians) participate directly in the U.S. (Chinese) invasion of Iraq (Ireland) the Brits (Mongolians) have the same culpability as the Americans (Chinese).

Thus, a Muslim (Christian) citizen of Britain (Mongolia) is justified in placing bombs in the trains and buses of Britain (Mongolia) to kill students, businessmen, laborers, officials, tourists, mothers, school children, tourists and the like who might be British (Mongolian) but could also be from other countries not involved.

Also, Muslims (Christians) in Britain (Mongolia) are justified in placing bombs on American (Chinese) airliners departing from Britain (Mongolia) and killing thousands of Brits (Chinese) and any citizens of other countries who might be on board the airliners, such as Nigerians, Saudis, Swedes, Malaysian. There being no way to ensure that an airliner has the requisite citizens from the guilty nations, the deaths of innocent nationals is an ancillary consequence of no importance, and are just necessary or irrelevant losses in your view.

The Muslim logic on the issue of who's responsible is starting to break down a bit here, George. By your logic, American troops (jihadis) in Iraq (Britain) can consider any and all civilians (of any nation) in Iraq (Britain) as complicit. Therefore, the death of someone with no responsibility for actions of the national government (jihadi killers jihadis) is acceptable.

Whence then your tender regard for the victims of the alleged massacre in Hadith? Or is there something more elegant and sanctified about leaving a backpack of explosives and nails in a commuter train compared to rape and small arms fire? You're too sophisticated for me, George, on this hierarchy of mangling deal.

The truth of the incident at Hadith will be dealt with in due course by U.S. military. For now, forgive me if I don't sign on to your particular conclusions about it, given that your analytical powers are not that impressive. If the U.S. troops are convicted (by legal processes that are utterly foreign to any Islamic court anywhere), I will be ok with that, just as I will be happy for the men if they are innocent of these charges and so adjudged. Right now, "press accounts" aren't that persuasive for me on something as important as criminal culpability.

I am sure you are just as horrified by the crimes of the jihadis and other swine in Iraq who are bombing civilians, destroying mosques, and cutting throats with abandon. Are the British-born Muslims calling for the punishment of those blokes? Here's my prediction: hell no they are calling for punishment. What an utterly ridiculous thought.

Those poor aggrieved Muslims in Britain (as opposed to those British Muslims, a concept that seems to me after some little thought to be an oxymoron) are so torqued by the level of violence in Iraq inflicted by the U.S. and the Brits on their co-religionists . . . .

Let's see, twenty-four Iraqis allegedly massacred in Hadith. Let's go with a higher figure of less than 1,000 civilians killed as a result of U.S. action over two years. Call it 1,000, ok?

So, we have at least 24 killed deliberately by a few U.S. troops this year, 976 killed by other U.S. troops by accident over a two-year period.

Furthermore, Aslan points out that:

[C]ivilian deaths in Iraq have been happening in Iraq for 27 years. For the first 24, politicians, leftists and the fourth estate didn’t give a damn.

By Aslan's count, the number of civilians in Iraq who have been saved by the Bush Doctrine is between 75,549 and 178,248. Id.

That's a net reduction in Iraqi civilian deaths of . . . well, you do the math, George.

Bottom line, you think the anger of Muslims in Britain is righteous. It's not, George. It's anger founded in thinking that is utterly illogical.

Wait, belay that thought. It's Slamologic at its best.

It hurt to be chastised by you, George, but I have to hand it to you. Your lesson in Muslim sensibilities and thinking was invaluable.

The fruits of Islam.

The Baron is awake and at his post:

The fruits of Islam for fourteen centuries have been war, plunder, slavery, poverty, degradation, and ignorance. Notwithstanding the “Golden Age of Al-Andalus”, or any other purported Islamic golden age.

Islam has not shown a peaceful face to the world. In the name of its god it has consistently gone forth with the sword against its neighbor. Such peace as has been found within it has been the peace of satiety from plunder, or the peace of the outnumbered or outgunned, or the peace of the hudna, which bides its time until the moment is propitious and the slaughter can be resumed.

"An Open Letter to Eteraz." By Baron Bodissey, Gates of Vienna, 9/3/06.

The attack on Islam by existing.

Arnold Beichman writes about a Muslim's web site that describes in detail how to find a "Crusader" [i.e., "Christian"], kill him, and escape.

This Muslim, Amer Al-Najdi, is another one of those "misunderstanders" that Robert Spencer writes about. What Mr. Al-Najdi does not understand is that the Koran counsels peace and killing infidels is supposed to be something a good Mohammedan does only in the course of defending Islam from attack.

But, wait, Mr. Spencer! Whoa! Don't you see Mr. Al-Najdi's logic? A foreigner's working for a local company and his presence in Mr. Al-Najdi's homeland are attacks on Islam. One's existence as a Crusader by itself is an attack on Islam if you really think it through.

YOU, Mr. Spencer, are the one who doesn't understand Islam!

It is entirely possible for Islam to be a Religion of Peace and and for a Mohammedan to kill a Crusader mother of two who is bent on destroying Islam.

How cool is that?

Allahu akbar, sucker!

"Chilling killing guide." By Arnold Beichman, Washington Times, 8/31/06.

The slowwww awakening.

Eleven British Muslims have been charged with conspiracy to murder over the plot to blow up airliners.

Four persons are accused of lesser offenses and five others are still being questioned, but have not been charged.

[Mr. Peter Clarke, head of London police's anti-terrorist branch,] said that police and intelligence agents were trying to track thousands of people believed to be directly or indirectly involved in terrorism.

"What we've learned since September 11 is that the threat is not something that's simply coming from overseas into the United Kingdom," Mr. Clarke said. "What we've learned, and what we've seen all too graphically and all too murderously, is that we have a threat which is being generated here within the United Kingdom."

Was it . . . just possibly mind you . . . a mistake to have imported Muslims into a Western nation, a nation whose values are fundamentally at odds with Islamic values?

The Colonel didn't know zip about Islam until about a year ago, when we were forced to begin this most unwelcome diversion of our mental energies into the jumbled, skewed, rank tangle of childish scribbling that passes for a religion.

This will come as a complte surprise to regular readers of "The Intergalactic Source of Truth," but the truth must be told. Our preliminary conclusion is that modern Mohammedanism is the JP4 jet-fueled chrome turbo hemi V8 engine and platinum drive shaft for Arab and Persian jingoism, revanchism, and fascism that has the intellectual elegance and consistency of a child's crayon rendering of his first day at school.

We still are light years away from any kind of a decent grasp of the subversive, murderous potential of Islam but you'd a thunk the British had a realistic view of Islam after ruling India for a century or so.

Discrimination against others has many slights, downright insults, and outright horrors to atone for in this life (e.g., communism's horrific record of class warfare) but there ought to be a new subdivision in hell to warm up the multiculturalists and leftist allies of welfare dependent immigrants who have proven to be bereft of any power of discrimination whatsoever.

"British arrest 16 more in terror probes." By Adrian Croft, Reuters News Agency, in Washington Times, 9/3/06 (emphasis added).

Rule by girlie men.

As the Swedish Minister of Migration Jens Orback lately said in an interview: “We must be nice to the Muslims now — hopefully they will remember it when they are in majority, and be nice in return”!

"The Swedish People Have Ceased to Exist — by Decree of Their Own Government." By LN, reproduced in "Die Dummen Schweden." By Baron Bodissey, Gates of Vienna, 9/1/06.

Jihad, keystone of Islamic doctrine.

The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) at the Center for Special Studies (C.S.S) provides an interesting analysis of a booklet found in the possession of Hezbollah operatives during the recent Lebanese open house.

The analysis states that traditional Sunni Islam "does not place [jihad] at the center of its worldview." However, it appears that Shia Islam does see jihad as being in the classical tradition (given, we logically conclude, the statement in the ITIC analysis that the "view of jihad espoused by Imam Khomeini and his successor, Khamenei, is not based merely on classical Islamic sources." (Emphasis added.)).

We are firmly of the opinion that Islam is at the root of terrorism. Islam as it is right now, as practiced, as accepted, as laid out in this Hezbollah booklet, the default Islam, the Islam that you get when you reach mental lockup state after reading reams and reams of Muslim horse feathers and you then hit the "Reset" button.

THAT Islam.

The Islam that the 77% of Palestinians hold dear, the Islam that allows them to support yet another pointless depredation against Israel, in this case "the Hamas kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, the provocation that . . . recently led to a new Israeli offensive in Gaza."

THAT Islam.

The Islam that's killed over five thousand souls since 9/11. (See Religion of Peace link at the bottom of this page.)

THAT Islam.

If classical Sunni Islam doesn't make jihad central, murderous present-day Sunni organizations like Al-Qaeda and the Islamic Liberation Party, Hizb al-Tahrir al-Islami do.

Wahhabi Sunni doctrine preaches unadulterated hatred for the infidel and is spread around the world today thanks to Saudi Arabia. Eighty percent of mosques in the U.S. are built with Saudi money and poisonous Wahhabi literature is what those mosques distribute..

THAT is the Islam we need to crush absolutely. "Abandon those beliefs for die!"

There's historical precedent for the effectiveness of this approach. It's the record of Islamic conquest throughout all of Islam's history, from its earliest days to the present moment.

The message we should be sending.

This post illustrates the genius of the Colonel in giving effect to the famous Latin aphorism, "Ex parvum extrapilatamus veritas."

Cox and Forkum, as usual, articulate the correct approach to Islamic terrorists:

Disarm or Die.
Cassandra call your office!

The only country with any sense of realism about the Islamic threat is Australia. Its treasurer, Peter Costello, made this statement to Australian Muslims:

If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you.

Do Hillary Rodham, Howard Dean, John Murtha, John Kerry, or Albert Gore have the political will or insight to make a similar statement? Let alone conduct a real war against our enemy? Not anytime soon, is our immediate reaction to the question.

Alas, such are the prominent leaders of the "alternative" to what we have now. The alternative, generally speaking, that the voters will have presented to them in just a few days.

They're sorry.

It's sad.

Mr. Bush has waged almost the real war needed, God bless him. (Our quarrel with him is only that he has imperfectly located of the fulcrum for our military force.) But how will even he deal with Iran's arming itself with nuclear weapons?

Assuming -- as is likely -- the Iranians' ability to game the U.N. and the infidels long enough to field an operational nuclear weapon or two, will the U.S. government, say vintage January 2009, have the backbone to say to Iran, "Disarm or die!"?

Here's an important point. Both questions are legitimate but tend to obscure the complete and total responsibility American voters have to make a definitive judgment about Islam and communicate that judgment to their officials.

In all our focus on Mr. Bush, we are forgetting how much time he has to spend trying to wake up a slumbering electorate and deal with scurrilous attacks on his motives. There are immensely important decisions to be made by American voters and they are yet acting like coy debutantes waiting to be courted. "Mr. President, please just tell us one more time why we should run away with you and fight those enemies you say we have."

The voters are not going to wake up this time until something much worse than 9/11 happens. Pearl Harbor times 10.

Americans should spend 30 minutes remembering all those poor people on September 11, 2001, whose last moment on earth was reduced to choosing between jumping to their death or being burned to death, between dying immediately in an airline crash or a few minutes later in an airliner crash. Then they should study the ever growing list of victims of murderous Islam since 9/11 -- today at 5,721.

If they did only this -- and gave up their foolish hope that American would forever remain as impregnable as she was in 1945 -- Mr. Bush would have no problem in making his case for a foreign policy that would safeguard Americans and the West for the next 100 year.

"Militant Message." Cox & Forkum Editorial Cartoons, 8/27/06.

Global Warming for Dummies.

This is the anodyne for that three-alarm hysteria you're undoubtedly feeling about global warming. We oursefs are most definitely experiencing muscle twitching and rapid eyeball rotation on account of this crisis:

In the last two years, a remarkable amount of disturbing news has been published concerning global warming, largely concentrating on melting of polar ice, tropical storms and hurricanes, and mass extinctions. . .

It is highly improbable, in a statistical sense, that new information added to any existing forecast is almost always “bad” or “good”; rather, each new finding has an equal probability of making a forecast worse or better. Consequently, the preponderance of bad news almost certainly means that something is missing, both in the process of science itself and in the reporting of science. This paper examines in detail both recent scientific reports on climate change and the communication of those reports.

Needless to say, the unreported information is usually counter to the bad news. Reports of rapid disintegration of Greenland’s ice ignore the fact that the region was warmer than it is now for several decades in the early 20th century, before humans could have had much influence on climate. Similar stories concerning Antarctica neglect the fact that the net temperature trend in recent decades is negative, or that warming the surrounding ocean can serve only to enhance snowfall, resulting in a gain in ice. Global warming affects hurricanes in both positive and negative fashions, and there is no relationship between the severity of storms and ocean-surface temperature, once a commonly exceeded threshold temperature is reached. Reports of massive species extinction also turn out to be impressively flawed.

This constellation of half-truths and misstatements is a predictable consequence of the way that science is now conducted, where issues compete with each other for public support. Unfortunately, this creates a culture of negativity that is reflected in the recent spate of global warming reports.

Executive Summary of "Is the Sky Really Falling? A Review of Recent Global Warming Scare Stories." By Patrick J. Michaels, Cato Institute, Policy Analysis no. 576, 8/23/06 (emphasis added).